Question

why do supporters argue that judicial activism is sometimes necessary in the united states?
it prevents the supreme court from overturning laws passed by congress.
it ensures that the constitution is interpreted only through its original wording.
it allows judges to protect individual rights when other branches fail to act.
it limits the supreme courts role to resolving minor legal disputes.

Explanation:

To solve this, we analyze each option:

• Option 1: Judicial activism often involves the Court overturning laws, so this is incorrect.
• Option 2: Original wording interpretation is "judicial restraint", not activism, so wrong.
• Option 3: Judicial activism allows judges to use their power to protect rights when other branches (legislative, executive) don't act, which matches the argument for its necessity.
• Option 4: The Supreme Court's role is not limited to minor disputes, and this doesn't relate to activism's necessity.

Answer:

C. It allows judges to protect individual rights when other branches fail to act